cybrxkhan
Asian Xwedodah
you know we're being sarcastic, right? we're not THAT stupid...
Ethiopians?
- Thread starter Monty Python Ni
- Start date
you know we're being sarcastic, right? we're not THAT stupid...
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
Let me explain Eurocentricism for a second, because I think it's a misunderstood concept: by those who hate it, and those who are accused of supporting it.
I hate Eurocentricism too. But it's more complex than racism or xenophobia towards other cultures. Eurocentricism is a self-centered look at history by Europeans. They're not self-centered because they are attention-whores (although there ARE some arrogant people). It's more self-centered in the way you want to understand "your" history. "World" history is secondary to "your" history.
History (history) is a story. The subtle power of Eurocentricism is that it starts from the simple task of telling the story of Europe. The end result, with certain Civilizations being left out of the picture, comes from how you naturally tell a story. A story has a main character (Europe), a beginning (the Fertile Crescent), and an end (today's political landscape). As a storyteller, you leave out parts that don't affect the main character. When you see a movie about Bruce Willis fighting cyber-terrorists in New York, you don't pan over to China to see them building the three gorges dam. Stories only include details that are relevant to explaining what happens to the main character.
Today, the Western World is economically and politically dominant. That's the "end" of the story. To build a story from beginning to end, you have to work backwards. Why is Europe is dominant? The industrial revolution, the scientific revolution, and colonialism. Where did those come from? Well, then you start to explain the renaissance, the dark ages, and the fall of the Roman Empire. And how do you explain the Roman Empire? You mention some of the great leaders and accomplishments, but also mention big influences like the Greeks and Christians, as well as key foes like the Carthaginians and Celts. And if you're feeling sassy, you might start with the first Civilizations in Mesopotamia, or with the first humans in Africa, or even the go into the beginning of life, or the beginning of the universe. Those will be your characters for the entire story.
Everyone else is secondary. You MIGHT mention that the Printing Press, the Stirrup, the Compass, Gunpowder, the Civil Service, or the number Zero originated in the East. You might mention that the Mongols and Turks blocked European passage to the East. You might mention that the Arabs kept knowledge alive during the Dark Ages which Europe rediscovered. But you don't go any further: remember that this story must explain why the West controls 2/3 of the world's GDP. The story can't get dragged off focus.
So what do you leave out? You leave out Africa, Mesoamerica, Japan, the entire Indus Valley... except to explain why they were colonized (emphasize their weak points), and maybe their modern status (emphasize their backwardness). Again, it's not because Eurocentrists are racist (although I'm sure a few are). It's because the story of Europe focuses on the players that affected Europe.
That's why the Holy Roman Empire is in there sooner than the Kush. That's why the Celts are in there sooner than the Khmer. That's why the Zulu represented Africa in the first 3 versions of Civilization. For the sake of telling the European story, it's better to include a secondary character in the European narrative rather than include a main character in another narrative.
And that's where Eurocentricism comes from.
I hate Eurocentricism too. But it's more complex than racism or xenophobia towards other cultures. Eurocentricism is a self-centered look at history by Europeans. They're not self-centered because they are attention-whores (although there ARE some arrogant people). It's more self-centered in the way you want to understand "your" history. "World" history is secondary to "your" history.
History (history) is a story. The subtle power of Eurocentricism is that it starts from the simple task of telling the story of Europe. The end result, with certain Civilizations being left out of the picture, comes from how you naturally tell a story. A story has a main character (Europe), a beginning (the Fertile Crescent), and an end (today's political landscape). As a storyteller, you leave out parts that don't affect the main character. When you see a movie about Bruce Willis fighting cyber-terrorists in New York, you don't pan over to China to see them building the three gorges dam. Stories only include details that are relevant to explaining what happens to the main character.
Today, the Western World is economically and politically dominant. That's the "end" of the story. To build a story from beginning to end, you have to work backwards. Why is Europe is dominant? The industrial revolution, the scientific revolution, and colonialism. Where did those come from? Well, then you start to explain the renaissance, the dark ages, and the fall of the Roman Empire. And how do you explain the Roman Empire? You mention some of the great leaders and accomplishments, but also mention big influences like the Greeks and Christians, as well as key foes like the Carthaginians and Celts. And if you're feeling sassy, you might start with the first Civilizations in Mesopotamia, or with the first humans in Africa, or even the go into the beginning of life, or the beginning of the universe. Those will be your characters for the entire story.
Everyone else is secondary. You MIGHT mention that the Printing Press, the Stirrup, the Compass, Gunpowder, the Civil Service, or the number Zero originated in the East. You might mention that the Mongols and Turks blocked European passage to the East. You might mention that the Arabs kept knowledge alive during the Dark Ages which Europe rediscovered. But you don't go any further: remember that this story must explain why the West controls 2/3 of the world's GDP. The story can't get dragged off focus.
So what do you leave out? You leave out Africa, Mesoamerica, Japan, the entire Indus Valley... except to explain why they were colonized (emphasize their weak points), and maybe their modern status (emphasize their backwardness). Again, it's not because Eurocentrists are racist (although I'm sure a few are). It's because the story of Europe focuses on the players that affected Europe.
That's why the Holy Roman Empire is in there sooner than the Kush. That's why the Celts are in there sooner than the Khmer. That's why the Zulu represented Africa in the first 3 versions of Civilization. For the sake of telling the European story, it's better to include a secondary character in the European narrative rather than include a main character in another narrative.
And that's where Eurocentricism comes from.
cybrxkhan
Asian Xwedodah
wow. i liked that. Eurocentric... but amusingly nice at the same time.
however, in the grand epic story known as "The Story of Mankind"... who gets to tell it? dh_epic is right... the Europeans and Americans, for now. if the Chinese were telling it, they wouldn't care about the Celts or the HRE or whatever, the main characters would be China, India, Persia, etc.
well, then, it is impossible to tell "The Story of Mankind" "fairly", because even if we kill everyone and leave out one guy left... well, the story still will have some centric-ism. as long as there is bias, this story canot be truly writen "fairly". and mankind will ALWAYS have bias. do not deny one doesn't have bias, thats just stupid (i have bias too).
i have no idea what i just said. good lecture, though, dh_epic.
however, in the grand epic story known as "The Story of Mankind"... who gets to tell it? dh_epic is right... the Europeans and Americans, for now. if the Chinese were telling it, they wouldn't care about the Celts or the HRE or whatever, the main characters would be China, India, Persia, etc.
well, then, it is impossible to tell "The Story of Mankind" "fairly", because even if we kill everyone and leave out one guy left... well, the story still will have some centric-ism. as long as there is bias, this story canot be truly writen "fairly". and mankind will ALWAYS have bias. do not deny one doesn't have bias, thats just stupid (i have bias too).
i have no idea what i just said. good lecture, though, dh_epic.
Florian
Prince
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2003
- Messages
- 337
dh-epic,
That's exactly right. Excellent explanation. The Civilization games are a History of Western Civilization class turned into a game. Each new game in the series has broadened the perspective a bit, but under the hood the engine is the same.
And I would argue that any game in which the goal is to be the leading civilization in the world by the 21st century HAS to be told from this perspective, for the simple fact that in real life, all the civs that would have "won" if history had abruptly ended any time in the past 300 years have been European civilizations (counting the U.S. as European by derivation). Most of the modern techs and wonders in the game were invented or built in Europe and the United States (and remember, the Three Gorges Dam might be bigger, but the Hoover Dam came first). That's just the situation at this point in history.
That's exactly right. Excellent explanation. The Civilization games are a History of Western Civilization class turned into a game. Each new game in the series has broadened the perspective a bit, but under the hood the engine is the same.
And I would argue that any game in which the goal is to be the leading civilization in the world by the 21st century HAS to be told from this perspective, for the simple fact that in real life, all the civs that would have "won" if history had abruptly ended any time in the past 300 years have been European civilizations (counting the U.S. as European by derivation). Most of the modern techs and wonders in the game were invented or built in Europe and the United States (and remember, the Three Gorges Dam might be bigger, but the Hoover Dam came first). That's just the situation at this point in history.
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
Well it also reaches this point because Europe was the first to get involved with Everyone else's story.
If you do pre-1500s History, then you have separate stories, semi-related but not much (Indian Ocean trade/Mongol Empire being some of the long range interactions). Post 1500, Europe is involved in Everyone else's story.. and post 1900 everyone is involved in everyone else's.
Of course for the game, it has to do with the market, which is mostly Western, and therefore is going to have a Western story bias.
If you do pre-1500s History, then you have separate stories, semi-related but not much (Indian Ocean trade/Mongol Empire being some of the long range interactions). Post 1500, Europe is involved in Everyone else's story.. and post 1900 everyone is involved in everyone else's.
Of course for the game, it has to do with the market, which is mostly Western, and therefore is going to have a Western story bias.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
I'm glad people found that interesting.
Krikkitone is right. Post 1500 history really is the story of Europe. The developers of the game are American. The market is largely Western. To some degree, marketing will drive the choice of civilizations more than any hidden European bias.
But when you start to see Eurocentricism, you can start to imagine how a different story of everyone's history would look. Not a politically correct version of history. A complete version of history.
Let me give you an example. Eras reflect a bias. In a Eurocentric history, the eras unfold a lot like the ones Firaxis chose. There's the ancient era (before Europe), the classical era (of Greece and Rome), the middle ages (when nothing happened -- ignore China, Mongolia, India, Arabia, Africa, Islam), the renaissance (where Europe came back), and then industrialization and the present.
"Sinocentricism", the perspective of China, might divide the world's eras into its dynasties, or its key inventions. Afrocentricism might divide the world into before Islam, after Islam, after colonization, and after de-colonization. In fact, Middle Eastern history might divide time into eras very similar to the Africans. And when those are the milestones of their history, you can already tell that the major players won't include civilizations like the Holy Romans.
So as you start to look at the history of all the world's peoples... you realize the story of everyone's history would include ... well... everyone! The problem is you have to prioritize. You look at today's population around the world and first ask -- what Civilization are they most closely related to? Who impacted them and influenced them? That's why Mali is in there: you can't tell the story of the 1 billion African people without explaining that the religion of most African people before colonization was Islam. As big as an impact as the Europeans had on Africa, you can't explain those 1 billion people away as a bunch of barbarians, or an extension of Egypt.
Krikkitone is right. Post 1500 history really is the story of Europe. The developers of the game are American. The market is largely Western. To some degree, marketing will drive the choice of civilizations more than any hidden European bias.
But when you start to see Eurocentricism, you can start to imagine how a different story of everyone's history would look. Not a politically correct version of history. A complete version of history.
Let me give you an example. Eras reflect a bias. In a Eurocentric history, the eras unfold a lot like the ones Firaxis chose. There's the ancient era (before Europe), the classical era (of Greece and Rome), the middle ages (when nothing happened -- ignore China, Mongolia, India, Arabia, Africa, Islam), the renaissance (where Europe came back), and then industrialization and the present.
"Sinocentricism", the perspective of China, might divide the world's eras into its dynasties, or its key inventions. Afrocentricism might divide the world into before Islam, after Islam, after colonization, and after de-colonization. In fact, Middle Eastern history might divide time into eras very similar to the Africans. And when those are the milestones of their history, you can already tell that the major players won't include civilizations like the Holy Romans.
So as you start to look at the history of all the world's peoples... you realize the story of everyone's history would include ... well... everyone! The problem is you have to prioritize. You look at today's population around the world and first ask -- what Civilization are they most closely related to? Who impacted them and influenced them? That's why Mali is in there: you can't tell the story of the 1 billion African people without explaining that the religion of most African people before colonization was Islam. As big as an impact as the Europeans had on Africa, you can't explain those 1 billion people away as a bunch of barbarians, or an extension of Egypt.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
Nah, I meant most African people -- save the furthest reaches of the continent. It's a little known fact. Probably because the existing religion of African peoples was under-emphasized when the conversions to Christianity began in the colonial era.
It's still like that today. There's a little bit more muslims in Africa than christians, but it still matters.
And dh_epic, while your post was interesting, justifying eurocentrism isn't the right thing to do in all cases. While the majority of the market is western, it can't hurt to have a broader scope. And guess what: Eastern Asia is actually being represented really well, compared to the rest of the non-European world.
And dh_epic, while your post was interesting, justifying eurocentrism isn't the right thing to do in all cases. While the majority of the market is western, it can't hurt to have a broader scope. And guess what: Eastern Asia is actually being represented really well, compared to the rest of the non-European world.
cybrxkhan
Asian Xwedodah
hehe, thanks to sheer size.
Eastern Asia: China, Japan, Mongolia, Korea
Indian Subcontinent: India
Western Africa - Mali
Middle Africa - N/A
Eastern Africa - Ethiopia
Southern Africa - Zulu
Northern Africa - Carthage, Egypt, Arabia (Saladin, Arab World, etc.)
Greater Iran - Persia
Arabian Peninsula - Arabia
Central Asia - N/A
Northern Asia - ... I don't even think there could be a civ here
Pacific - N/A
North America - America, Native Americans (gah!)
Central America - Aztec, Maya
South America - Inca
They're doing so much better it's amazing. The only one that comes close is Northern Africa. Btw, these are my definitions, not backed by the UN or anything
.
Indian Subcontinent: India
Western Africa - Mali
Middle Africa - N/A
Eastern Africa - Ethiopia
Southern Africa - Zulu
Northern Africa - Carthage, Egypt, Arabia (Saladin, Arab World, etc.)
Greater Iran - Persia
Arabian Peninsula - Arabia
Central Asia - N/A
Northern Asia - ... I don't even think there could be a civ here
Pacific - N/A
North America - America, Native Americans (gah!)
Central America - Aztec, Maya
South America - Inca
They're doing so much better it's amazing. The only one that comes close is Northern Africa. Btw, these are my definitions, not backed by the UN or anything
.
Florian
Prince
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2003
- Messages
- 337
dh,
Could you cite a source for that? As far as I know, Central and Southern Africa were still animistic in their religion when Modern European colonization started. And East Africa was mixed Christian-Muslim. North Africa was mostly Muslim, and maybe West Africa (if Mali was), but that's not exactly "most" of Africa.
Could you cite a source for that? As far as I know, Central and Southern Africa were still animistic in their religion when Modern European colonization started. And East Africa was mixed Christian-Muslim. North Africa was mostly Muslim, and maybe West Africa (if Mali was), but that's not exactly "most" of Africa.
sylvanllewelyn
Perma-newb
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2006
- Messages
- 1,971
This game is not about the dominance of the US, Europe, US, US and the US. This game is not about the rise of mankind either. This game is about civilization. Ever since humankind became civilized, the story begins. And today is not the end of the story either, at least until we destroy Earth with an environmental catastrophe or nuclear world war. Right now the US is dominent, may last a long time, or the tables may turn later.
I'm sure the Ethiopians have a strong influance in history, just perhaps not through muscle.
I'm sure the Ethiopians have a strong influance in history, just perhaps not through muscle.
Bakuel
King
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2007
- Messages
- 608
I don’t mean to nitpick you Florian but…. I’m pretty sure that animism is just a belief in souls or spirits. Most religions that I now of have some degree of animism.
There is no one African religion called animism, that’s just a blanket term used for the many African beliefs, religions, and cults and so on that people use when they don’t know what the people practice.
There is no one African religion called animism, that’s just a blanket term used for the many African beliefs, religions, and cults and so on that people use when they don’t know what the people practice. Many sub-Sahara African beliefs may seems similar to the outsiders for instance they almost all have a concept of a supreme creator god who “usually” doesn’t get into the day to day running of the universe and is more of a great spirit and leaves “minor” gods and spirits to run the world (even though I remember some priests in some tribes will call on him directly).
However, the beliefs are as different in doctrine and practices as Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. Similar, but clearly different. Some African tribes may belief in some form of reincarnation some may not etc. Outside of our supreme god concept, they almost all follow different deities with different ceremonies, teachings and so on. To point you to one of the more famous African religions, you may want to look up the Yoruba religion.
While some one could group together African gold coast beliefs or central African or whatever, personally I think grouping together Central and South African religions under one name would be quite ignorant, that area is a bit too large and diverse.
If dh_epic is looking at the religions of African without the blanket term of animism, I’m pretty sure that Islam would outnumber the followers of other religions in Africa.
Edit: Wait a sec, does dh mean "most" as in, "The highest number of Africans follow Islam" or "More than 50% of Africans follow Islam."?
There is no one African religion called animism, that’s just a blanket term used for the many African beliefs, religions, and cults and so on that people use when they don’t know what the people practice.
There is no one African religion called animism, that’s just a blanket term used for the many African beliefs, religions, and cults and so on that people use when they don’t know what the people practice. Many sub-Sahara African beliefs may seems similar to the outsiders for instance they almost all have a concept of a supreme creator god who “usually” doesn’t get into the day to day running of the universe and is more of a great spirit and leaves “minor” gods and spirits to run the world (even though I remember some priests in some tribes will call on him directly).
However, the beliefs are as different in doctrine and practices as Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. Similar, but clearly different. Some African tribes may belief in some form of reincarnation some may not etc. Outside of our supreme god concept, they almost all follow different deities with different ceremonies, teachings and so on. To point you to one of the more famous African religions, you may want to look up the Yoruba religion.
While some one could group together African gold coast beliefs or central African or whatever, personally I think grouping together Central and South African religions under one name would be quite ignorant, that area is a bit too large and diverse.
If dh_epic is looking at the religions of African without the blanket term of animism, I’m pretty sure that Islam would outnumber the followers of other religions in Africa.
Edit: Wait a sec, does dh mean "most" as in, "The highest number of Africans follow Islam" or "More than 50% of Africans follow Islam."?
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
That's part of the hidden bias of Eurocentricism. History, hate it or love it, isn't nearly as scientific as it presents itself. History is a story. Stories have endings. So history is ALWAYS relative to "what we know now". Hence why the Civilization puts more detail and emphasis into some parts of the world, and less into other parts.
The same is true of time. The technology tree reflects "what we know now" -- world history partially is a history of technological dominance. What if history isn't about that? What if 200 years from now, people look back and say "technology led us astray with nuclear weapons, genetic engineering, and the destruction of the ozone"? That might be hard to imagine for some people. Try this instead: imagine that the Europeans of Cluny Abbey designed a Civilization board game in 1000 AD, at the height of Christian thought. The technology tree would take a total back seat! Instead, the game would be won by those who show themselves to be the more pious: they might just replace the technology tree with the "ladder of faith", unlocking greater power! And the Greeks who troubled themselves with stupid ideas about the motion of the planets or various political systems would lose the game.
Part of modern historiography (the study of how the winners wrote history) is untangling "what really happened" from the inaccuracies that are built into story form. And, hate it or love it, the story form right now describes how the Western World has the majority of the world's GDP -- and leaves out so much else. If we understand those inaccuracies better, then we become stronger at avoiding them.
I was saying more than 50%, in the whole continent. Probably closer to an overwhelming majority in North Africa, and not nearly as present in the more rural regions of Africa (see: central and south africa). But still a majority. Even after the hard work of the Christian missionaries over the past 400-500 years, Islam still holds a (bare) majority.
But we're not here to nitpick "most". I was trying to describe what a less eurocentric game would look like. Again, if we're trying to escape the trap of Eurocentricism, you need to describe the history of everybody. And the billion people living in Africa right now, Islam is a huge part of their history -- even if many have since been converted to Christianity. Hence why I'm very glad they included Mali before Zulu.
An ideal history, though, would include everybody.
cybrxkhan
Asian Xwedodah
using the word "ideal" makes it sound communist...
which means it won't be happening any time soon.dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
Unbiased is hard. A lot of history is burnt up whenever a library is razed. But we might get the next best thing: a pool of all reasonable perspectives, with the best and brightest trying to reconcile these perspectives.
For the sake of Civ it's actually relatively easy: just be sure to include civilizations that had a big impact in their era, in their region. Prioritizing is the hard part -- I'd say Mali had a bigger impact in the middle ages of Africa than Poland had in the renaissance of Europe.
For the sake of Civ it's actually relatively easy: just be sure to include civilizations that had a big impact in their era, in their region. Prioritizing is the hard part -- I'd say Mali had a bigger impact in the middle ages of Africa than Poland had in the renaissance of Europe.
cybrxkhan
Asian Xwedodah
some Pole is gonna bash at you, im sure.
anyhow, even with the best of minds and the least of biased peoples, there sitll is bias... but the less the better. it can't be eradicated, but it can be reduced to a decent (but not great) degree.
anyhow, someone should get back to bashing at Ethiopians so we can get the thread going.
Similar threads
